adam_scholl's Shortform

I don't remember anyone proposing "maybe this trader has an edge", even though incentivising such people to trade is the mechanism by which prediction markets work. Certainly I didn't, and in retrospect it feels like a failure not to have had 'the multi-million dollar trader might be smart money' as a hypothesis at all.

Knowing now that he had an edge, I feel like his execution strategy was suspect. The Polymarket prices went from 66c during the order back to 57c on the 5 days before the election. He could have extracted a bit more money from the market if he had forecasted the volume correctly and traded against it proportionally.

On one hand, I feel a bit skeptical that some dude outperformed approximately every other pollster and analyst by having a correct inside-view belief about how existing pollster were messing up, especially given that he won't share the surveys.  On the other hand, this sort of result is straightforwardly predicted by Inadequate Equilibria, where an entire industry had the affordance to be arbitrarily deficient in what most people would think was their primary value-add, because they had no incentive to accuracy (skin in the game), and as soon as someone with an edge could make outsized returns on it (via real-money prediction markets), they outperformed all the experts.

On net I think I'm still <50% that he had a correct belief about the size of Trump's advantage that was justified by the evidence he had available to him, but even being directionally-correct would have been sufficient to get outsized returns a lot of the time, so at that point I'm quibbling with his bet sizing rather than the direction of the bet.

I can proudly say that though I disparaged the guy in private, I not once put my money where my mouth was, which means outside observers can infer that all along I secretly agreed with his analysis of the situation.

Yes. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tDkYdyJSqe3DddtK4/alexander-gietelink-oldenziel-s-shortform?commentId=JqDaYkRyw2WSAZLDg [LW(p) · GW(p)]

Criticizing FDA food regulations is a niche; it is hard to criticize 'the unseen', especially when it's mostly about pleasure and the FDA is crying: 'we're saying lives! Won't someone thinking of the children? How can you disagree, just to stuff your face? Shouldn't you be on a diet anyway?'

But if you go looking, you'll find tons of it: pasteurized cheese and milk being a major flashpoint, as apparently the original unpasteurized versions are a lot tastier. (I'm reminded of things like beef tallow for fries or Chipotle - how do you know how good McDonald's french fries used to taste before an overzealous crusader destroyed them if you weren't there 30+ years ago? And are you really going to stand up and argue 'I think that we should let people eat fries made with cow fat, because I am probably a lardass who loves fries and weighs 300 pounds, rather than listen to The Science™'?) There's also the recent backfiring of overzealous allergy regulations, which threatens to cut off a large fraction of the entire American food supply to people with sesame & peanut allergies, due solely to the FDA. (Naturally, of course, the companies get the blame.) Similarly, I read food industry people noting that the effect of the ever-increasing burden of FDA regulations is a constant collapse of diversity, as everyone converges on a handful of safe ingredients and having to outsource to centralized food processors who can certify FDA compliance; but how would you ever see this browsing your local Walmart and looking at the colorful labels at the front? (Normal people do not spend much time reading the ingredients label and wondering why everything seems to be made out of the same handful of ingredients, starting with corn syrup.)

The 'Food' and the 'Drug' parts behave very differently. By default food products are allowed. There may be purity requirements or restaurant regulations but you don't need to run studies or get approvals to serve an edible product or a new combination. By default drugs are banned. 

I think the FDA is under zealous about heavy metals and other contaminants.  But the FDA does a decent job of regulating food. However the 'drug' side is a nightmare. But the two situations are de facto handled in very, very different ways. So its not obvious why an argument would cover both of them.

Have you ever visited a country without zealous food safety regulations? I think it's one of those things where it's hard to realize what the alternative looks like (plentiful, cheap, and delicious street food available wherever people gather, so that you no longer have to plan around making sure you either bring food or go somewhere with restaurants, and it is viable for individuals to exist without needing a kitchen of their own).

Basically, because food is a domain where there are highly negative tail effects, but not highly positive tail effects, conditioning on eating food at all, and thus it's an area where you can afford to be restrictive, and this is notably not the case for medicine, where high negative and positive tail effect effects exist, so you need to be more lenient on your standards.

I think one exception may be salmonellosis. In USA, you get 1.2 million illnesses, 23000 hospitalizations, and 450 deaths every year. To compare, in EU, selling contaminated chicken products is illegal, and when hundreds of people get sick, it becomes a scandal.

You have to refrigerate eggs in the us while you don't have to in the EU because of FDA regulations about washing the eggs. 

There's a strain of pro-sugar and anti-fat policies in regards to food for which the FDA shares some of the blame. Through that they might have contributed to the obesity crisis. 

It's possible that the regulations on farmers markets reduce the amount of farmers markets (which might be central to lower obesity levels in France and better health).

When asked to compare French regulations for farmers markets with the US regulations, Claude told me:

Overall, while both countries prioritize food safety, the French system tends to be more flexible for small producers and traditional methods, whereas the US system is more uniformly applied regardless of scale. The French approach often allows for more diverse and traditional products at markets, while the US system provides more consistent safety standards across diverse regions.

You likely could argue that the FDA shares part the blame for the obesity epidemic by setting bad incentives for low-fat and high fructose corn syrup foods while at the same time making it harder for farmers markets to actually sell healthy food. 

Apart from that you do have people who oppose forced labeling of GMO products which is also an FDA rule. 

I think there may be harmful contaminants in food we haven't discovered yet,

Do you see microplastics as "harmful contaminants that haven't been discovered yet"? It would be possible to have regulations that limit the amount of microplastic in plastic drinking bottles but those currently don't exist. 

I'd be interested in an article looking at whether the FDA is better at regulating food safety. I do expect food is an easier area, because erring on the side of caution doesn't really lose you much — most food products have close substitutes. If there's some low but not extremely low risk of a chemical in a food being bad for you, then the FDA can more easily deny approval without significant consequences: Medicine has more outsized effects if you are slow to approve usage.

Yet, perhaps this has led to reduced variety in food choices? I notice less generic or lesser-known food and beverage brands relative to a decade ago, though I haven't verified whether my that background belief is accurate. I'd be curious also for an investigation in such an article about the extent of the barriers to designing a new food product; especially food products that aren't doing anything new, purely a mixture of ingredients already considered safe (or at least, considered allowed). Would there be more variety? Or notably cheaper food?

For convenience, here's a slightly edited-for-clarity version of the abstract:

38 studies (all randomized controlled trials) were included: 25 in animals and 15 in humans (2 studies were conducted in both). Most studies used Bifidobacterium (eg, B. longum, B. breve, and B. infantis) and Lactobacillus (eg, L. helveticus, and L. rhamnosus), with doses between ${10}^9$ and 10^10 colony-forming units for 2 weeks in animals and 4 weeks in humans.

These probiotics showed efficacy in improving psychiatric disorder-related behaviors including anxiety, depression, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), obsessive-compulsive disorder, and memory abilities, including spatial and non-spatial memory.

Because many of the basic science studies showed some efficacy of probiotics on central nervous system function, this background may guide and promote further preclinical and clinical studies. Translating animal studies to human studies has obvious limitations but also suggests possibilities. Here, we provide several suggestions for the translation of animal studies. More experimental designs with both behavioral and neuroimaging measures in healthy volunteers and patients are needed in the future.

Possibly another good example of scientists failing to use More Dakka. The mice studies all showed solid effects, but then the human studies used the same dose range (10^9 or 10^10 CFU) and only about half showed effects! Googled for negative side effects of probiotics and the healthline result really had to stretch for anything bad. Wondering if, as much larger organisms, we should just be jacking up the dosage quite a bit.

Another (unlikely, but more likely than almost all other ancient people) candidate for partial future revival: During the 79 AD eruption of Vesuvius, part of this man's brain was vitrified.